m The largest and India͛s fastest growing electrical and power

distribution equipment manufacturer with a strong global

footprint.
m Havells owns some of the prestigious global brands like
Crabtree, Sylvania, Concord, Luminance, Linolite, & SLI
Lighting
m Its global network constitutes 91 branches and
representative offices and with over 8000 professionals in
over 50 countries across the globe, the Group has achieved
rapid success in the past few years.
m With a total turnover exceeding billion-plus dollars
a
 

 
    

   

 

 Industrial & Domestic Circuit Protection Switchgear
 Cables & Wires
 Motors
 Fans
 Power Capacitors
 CFL Lamps
 Luminaries for Domestic, Commercial & Industrial application
 Modular Switches covering the entire gamut of household, commercial and
industrial electrical needs
 COMPANYOBJECTIVES
 To ensure that business is run with professional
standards and ethics
 Modernity blends with tradition
 To ensure quality in process of productivity & an
excellent brand product
 To continuously upgrade product through attain
collaboration and in house research and
development
 To strive for continuous improvement in all other
areas of activity to achieve the highest
level of efficiency
è
 To be a globally recognized corporation that provides best
electrical & lighting solutions, delivered by best-in-class people.



To achieve our vision through fairness, business ethics, global

reach, technological expertise, building long term relationships with all our
associates, customers, partners, and employees.

è


Customer Delight : A commitment to surpassing our customer expectations.
Leadership by example. A commitment to set standards in our business
and transactions based on mutual trust.

Integrity and Transparency : A commitment to be ethical, sincere and open in

our dealings.

Pursuit of Excellence : A commitment to strive relentlessly, to constantly

improve ourselves, our teams, our services and products so as to become
the best in class
C
P 

The group's phenomenal success over the years
Has been due to Mr. Qimat Rai Gupta's mantra of
"growth through quality, innovation and market
consolidation". His focus on research and development has enabled
the group to develop products for consumers that offer great value
for money. His constant emphasis on promoting energy conservation
and environmental preservation coupled with his philanthropic
service to the economically weaker section of the society is his way of
giving back in return to the society that has helped this organization
realize its true potential.
O C 
 G Group is continuously applying modern management techniques such as Kaizen to
enable employees to improve their day to day functioning in small steps, one at a time.

 G has also implemented Japanese version of 5S which stands for "a place for
everything and everything in its place". The company has introduced these techniques
as it firmly believes that small changes add up to large results and the only way for a
corporation to grow, is to make its people grow.

The Group is driven by qualified and experienced professionals backed by a work force
of over 8000 employees. All branches and manufacturing facilities are computerized and
networked with each other. An open door policy at all levels encourages employees to
be participative, innovative and creative. Empowering employees helps the organization
in harnessing individual talents to the fullest. Emphasis is laid on building team spirit
which helps employees to realize collective potential.
 P   A
 
T E

P   M  

Performance Management process encompassing all

activities related to improving employee performance,
Productivity and effectiveness

TP   A
 P 
The Performance Appraisal Process consist of three steps:

m O

 




   
 




m   
    

O SP   BA

m Provides information for promotion and salary decisions
m Provides opportunity for reinforcement and/or corrective action
regarding performance
m Provides opportunity to review career plans

P   A
 P 
m Lack of standards; irrelevant, subjective, unrealistic
standards
m Poor measures of performance
m ater errors
m Poor feedback to employees E.g. Arguing
m Failure to use evaluation results for decision making

ð

P   Ex 

m ºob description is often insufficient to clarify performance expectations
m Measurable standards should be developed for each position
 A
 M
Paired Forced
Graphic ating Alternation Critical Incident
Comparison Distribution Narrative Forms
Scale anking Scale Method
Method Method

Graphic ating Scale Alternation anking Scale

6
 6
 Highest anking employee

Outstanding Gary

Very Good Heather

Good Ryan
Improvement Needed Kim
Unsatisfactory
Alison
Not ated
David

Lowest anking employee

 A
 M
Paired Forced
Graphic ating Alternation Critical Incident
Comparison Distribution Narrative h 
Scale anking Scale Method
Method Method

Paired Comparison Method Forced Distribution Method

6
 6

As yan Kim Gary Alison
compared to Employees High Performers
yan
- + - R5% R5% High-Average
Kim
+ + - Performers
Average
Gary 20% 20%
- - - Performers
Alison Low-Average
+ + + 30% Performers
anking Total Low Performers
2 1 3 0
Gary ranks highest with anking Total 3
 A
 M
Paired Forced
Graphic ating Alternation Critical Incident
Comparison Distribution Narrative Forms
Scale anking Scale Method
Method Method

Critical Incident Method Narrative Forms

mkeep a record of: m Rate performance

uncommonly good m Note performance analysis
undesirable
and examples
work-related behaviours
m Create improvement plan,
mreview with employee at including a timetable and
predetermined times follow-up process
m Discussion with employee
P   A
 
¢ 

   

eliability - criteria must be precise enough to result in
consistent measures when applied across many employees
by many different raters
Validity - criteria must be accurate to be valid; must be
relevant to the job; broad enough to cover all aspects of job;
specific

Ä 
¢ 


m ·nclear standards m Appraisal bias
m Halo effect m Recency effect
m Central tendency m Similar-to-me bias
m Leniency/strictness
A


A
 P 
m Ensure rater awareness of problems
m Choose the right appraisal tool
m Train supervisors to eliminate rating errors

OSðA


m Immediate supervisor
m Peers
m Rating committees
m Self
m Employees/subordinates
m 360-degree appraisal (all of the above)
T A
 I


m Performance is satisfactory; employee is promotable
m Performance is satisfactory; employee is not promotable
m Performance is unsatisfactory, but correctable
aC A
 I


m £e direct and specific
m Don͛t get personal
m Encourage the person to talk
m Develop an action plan
aa  ð

E 
m Recognize that defensive behaviour is normal
m Never attack a person͛s defenses
m Postpone action
m Recognize human limitations
 ÄA
 


M  
P   
m Central role in performance management
m uality-based appraisals:
mAvoid forced distribution
mUse objective performance criteria
m360-degree feedback
mAtmosphere of partnership and constructive
advice
 Ä 
Ä 
m RESEARCH DESIGN : DESCRIPTIVE ST·DY
m DATA TYPE: PRIMARY /SECONDARY DATA
m RESEARCH INSTR·MENT:Q·ESTIONNAIRE
m SAMPLE :MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
m SAMPLE SIZE:R00
m SAMPLE PROCED·RE:J·DGEMENTAL SAMPLING
m SAMPLING METHOD:PERSONAL S·RVEY
 h


m AS AFTER GOING TO ANSWERS GIVEN £Y THE
VARIO·S EMPLOYEES ,AS COMPANY WAS ·SING
FORCE DISTRI£·TION METHOD FOR APPRAISL £·T
MOST OF 80% EMPLOYEES WERE WANTING
CHANGE, AS THEY SAID THAT NEW METHOD WILL
DEFENITELY £E £ENEFICIAL FOR THE COMPANY.
m EMPLOYEES WANTED THE METHOD TO £E REPLACED
£Y 360-DEGREE PERFORMENCE APPRAISAL.
m ·NDER THIS METHOD PEERS, MANAGERS ETC HAVE
TO RATE EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE.
m THERE IS LEAST CHANCE FOR THE £IASNESS TO
OCC·R.
  
 
h ¢Ä

m D·E TO LACK OF TIME AND INTEREST THE
RESPONDENTS ,WERE NOT VERY COOPERATIVE IN
FILLING THE Q·ESTIONNAIRE AS RES·LT OF WHICH
THE RES·LT CO·LD £E £AISED TO AN EXTENT
m SOME RESPONDENTS GIVE VAG·E INFORMATION.
m DISINTEREST SHOWN £Y RESPONDENTS TO GIVE
RESPONSE TO Q·ESTIONNAIRE
m THE INTERVIEW SCHED·LED PREPARED FOR THE
MANAGEMENT PEOPLE WAS A SHORT ONE WITH ALL
OPEN ʹENDED Q·ESTIONS SO THAT THEIR IDEAS
CAN EASILY £E KNOWN.
 Ä 

 

m AS COMPANY SHO·LD GO FOR THE 360-DEGREE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL.
m THEY SHO·LD KEEP CHANGING THE RATERS FOR THE
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FROM TIME TO TIME SO
THAT THEY DON͛T £ECOME £IAS AT ANYTIME FOR ANY
EMPLOYEES.
m THE CRETERIA SHO·LD £E DECIDED ·PON WHICH THE
PERFORMANCE HAS TO £E RATED
m SHO·LD NOT £E FIXED IT SHO·LD £E CHANGED FROM TIME
TO TIME.
m FOR LOWER GRO·P THE COMPANY CAN INCREASE THEIR
WAGES,GIVE THEM PENSION SCHEMES,PROVIDES THEM THE
MEDICAL FACILITIES ETC.
 
 

m AS IN HAVELLS ,WE A E USING THE ͞ ATING SCALES͟MOSTLY TO G ADE
THE PE FO MANCE OF EMPLOYEES.THE METHOD USED BY THE
COMPANY IS VE Y FAI AND ITS IS VE Y EASY TO BE ADOPTED BY THE
PE SONNEL͛S.
m THIS METHOD IS CONVENIENT TO BE USED,BUT THE D AW BACK
ASSOCIATED WITH METHOD IS THAT IT HAS NOW BECAME AN OUT
DATED METHOD TO BE USED BECAUSE THE E A E FIFTY PE CENT
CHANCES OF BAISNESS TO OCCU FO A PA TICULA EMPLOYEE BY
ATE S
m BUT AFTE THE SU VEY ,THEY EALIZED THAT THEY A E HAVING
COMPLAINS F OM THE WO KE S ,STAFFS ETC THEY DECIDED TO GO FO
A CHANGE AND NOW THEY INCO PO ATED 360 DEG EE
PE FO MANCEAPP AISAL.
m THE ESULT OF USING THIS METHOD IS THAT EVE YONE IN COMPANY IS
SATISFIED BY IT.
m ACCO DIND TO MY VIEWS ,I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THE COMPANY TO
GO FO THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THEM FO BETTE
ESULTS AND EMPLOYEES SATISFACTION.